A brief educational moment concerning later term abortions

[Fry Guy]

Anyway, some of the loudest anti-abortion activists and politicians have, for years on end, focused their public statements heavily on late term abortions as if they happen all the time.  

It's a very transparent and misleading strategy for the purpose of riling emotions and garnering support to legally restrict women's right to choose.  

The truth is that late term abortions are a very small percentage of those performed (even in states where there is no time/trimester/viability restriction on abortion).

In my opinion, the current federal laws are a fair compromise.  Federal law forbids states from imposing abortion restrictions up to a certain point.  Restrictions can legally be imposed at such time as the fetus is viable (can survive independently outside the womb).

At present, politicians and activists who consider (or present) themselves as absolutist 'right to life' advocates are trying to redefine 'viability' in attempt to restrict women's right to choose and court the religious right politically.  

Since a heartbeat can be detected much earlier in a pregnancy than the fetus's ability to survive independently outside of the woman's womb, they're pushing the 'heartbeat' laws as a means to restrict women's right to choose substantially.

Are they pushing the women's right to choose? Really? Or are they really pushing to allow lives not to be killed off?
Which are they pushing and what IS their intent? Are you really being honest or are you virtue signaling your personal ideology and pretending to misread the intentions of the people wishing to push this law.

Personally I do not agree with the law but I am not for a moment dishonest enough to pretend they are trying to restrict a woman's right. They are trying to save lives.

It is like a religious person (for sake of an example let's say they are Muslim) not wishing to bake a cake or deliver flowers to a gay wedding. It is a clash of positions. The Folk at the gay wedding would rightly feel discriminated against and the Muslim florist or baker would feel like it goes against their religious conviction. Two clashing rights. Ought the religious person be forced to participate in an activity against their will that goes against everything in their religious beliefs? Ought the gay couple be forced to go elsewhere? You may have a feeling one way or another but it would be the height of dishonest to say that the motivation and intention of the Muslim florist or baker is to be discriminatory or bigoted. They are simply wishing to uphold their religious beliefs.

That is part of the problem with progressives. Dishonest as the day is long. You lie to prop up the Progressive agenda even when you know what you are saying is bullshit. Why you do it I do not know? Perhaps it is a hope that you will trick someone. Perhaps it is that you think no one else sees through it. Perhaps it is habit. Fucking stupid, dishonest and immoral, whatever the reason.